Merrick Garland, weakest AG ever?

[Mithrae]

Yes asking state officials to find you enough ballots to win is against the law. Sorry but this is not that difficult.

Which law was violated? Just because it's inappropriate and morally contemptible doesn't mean that the laws were written well enough to cover it.

No he was asking to find 12k votes that he needed to win. Raffensberger himself verified it. No need to waste your time.

Could you quote that from the transcript? As I've pointed out, the full sentence was "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

How is it 1 more vote than Trump had if he wanted 11,780 more votes for himself? Imagine anyone reading the full sentence to try to understand its meaning - crazy stuff! The rest of the surrounding context further explains, again as posted in #17 and repeatedly in subsequent posts (and the previous one you quoted).

 

[Callen]

Yes, and I don't think that will be a very persuasive argument by Trump. Garland should go for it. The worse that can happen is that Trump is found not guilty.

There is no way to avoid this being political anymore. Garland has a duty to protect democracy.

Agreed that is the worst that can happen...the very, very worst. Trump being vindicated by the courts is a nightmare for democracy.

 

[bomberfox]

Which law was violated? Just because it's inappropriate and morally contemptible doesn't mean that the laws were written well enough to cover it.


Could you quote that from the transcript? As I've pointed out, the full sentence was "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

How is it 1 more vote than Trump had if he wanted 11,780 more votes for himself? Imagine anyone reading the full sentence to try to understand its meaning - crazy stuff! The rest of the surrounding context further explains, again as posted in #17 and repeatedly in subsequent posts (and the previous one you quoted).

All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

This. He wanted Raffensberger to “find” enough ballots to give him the win. You answered your own question.

 

[bomberfox]

Good grief, have you been reading any of this conversation - including the transcript of the call I posted? He was not asking to 'find' more votes for himself. The Democrats obviously have their 'big lies' too, and this one is right up there with Trump never condemning white nationalism/calling them 'very fine people.' Frankly I don't understand it; there's so many contemptible things that he did do, why the need to distort/make up things he didn't?

You answered your own question. Do you understand subtext like at all? Lol

 

[bomberfox]

Agreed that is the worst that can happen...the very, very worst. Trump being vindicated by the courts is a nightmare for democracy.

Eh worse comes to worse overthrow a robber baron.

 

[Mithrae]

All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

This. He wanted Raffensberger to “find” enough ballots to give him the win. You answered your own question.

Yes, he wanted Raffensperger to find votes for Biden which could be disqualified on trivial technicalities. Not votes for Trump. Votes for Biden. You understand that, right?

The particular federal law we've been looking at - 52 U.S. Code § 20511, since it was cited by the experts/article posted by @RIP U.S. Democracy - makes it illegal to count ballots known to be fraudulent, but as far as I can see from half a dozen readings doesn't say anything about disqualifying ballots based on technicalities in a one-sided manner. Did you have a different law in mind which was violated here? As I've said repeatedly, it seems strange to think that such a contemptible call might not be strictly illegal, but how else do you explain the lack of prosecution?

 

[TurtleDude]

View attachment 67378225

Correction; Treacherous, crazy ass violent Trumpster attackers.

the Talididen want to keep whining about the 1/6 riots to avoid having to deal with the incompetence of senile Joe's administration

 

[bomberfox]

Yes, he wanted Raffensperger to find votes for Biden which could be disqualified on trivial technicalities. Not votes for Trump. Votes for Biden. You understand that, right?

The particular federal law we've been looking at - 52 U.S. Code § 20511, since it was cited by the experts/article posted by @RIP U.S. Democracy - makes it illegal to count ballots known to be fraudulent, but as far as I can see from half a dozen readings doesn't say anything about disqualifying ballots based on technicalities in a one-sided manner. Did you have a different law in mind which was violated here? As I've said repeatedly, it seems strange to think that such a contemptible call might not be strictly illegal, but how else do you explain the lack of prosecution?

He knows those votes are valid. Do you understand subtext at all and why Raffensberger knew he could not legally do that. You are being downright goofy

 

[bomberfox]

Yes, he wanted Raffensperger to find votes for Biden which could be disqualified on trivial technicalities. Not votes for Trump. Votes for Biden. You understand that, right?

The particular federal law we've been looking at - 52 U.S. Code § 20511, since it was cited by the experts/article posted by @RIP U.S. Democracy - makes it illegal to count ballots known to be fraudulent, but as far as I can see from half a dozen readings doesn't say anything about disqualifying ballots based on technicalities in a one-sided manner. Did you have a different law in mind which was violated here? As I've said repeatedly, it seems strange to think that such a contemptible call might not be strictly illegal, but how else do you explain the lack of prosecution?

Do you understand why Raffensberger refused? He could not legally do as Trump asked. Trump was demanding him to violate the law. You dont need to die on this silly hi-aw who the **** am i kidding… every other person i tried to give an out just kept on digging.

 

[Mithrae]

He knows those votes are valid. Do you understand subtext at all and why Raffensberger knew he could not legally do that. You are being downright goofy

If you go through all the Biden votes with a fine-tooth comb, checking the signature and "compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago" as Trump was saying, you definitely will find plenty of 'irregularities,' plenty of trivial technicalities by which to disqualify the ballot. Same if you did it to votes for Trump of course, but obviously he was only asking for those disqualifications to be found in Biden votes.

Do you understand why Raffensberger refused? He could not legally do as Trump asked. Trump was demanding him to violate the law.

Pretty sure that Raffensperger was not legally obligated to leak the call to the press, so obviously at least some of his actions were based on something more than legal constraint. More to the point, as with judges and most other officials, it could easily be illegal for Raffensperger to carry out his electoral duties in a partisan manner while still being perfectly legal for partisan individuals to present their case/petition for action in their favour.

You dont need to die on this silly hi-aw who the **** am i kidding… every other person i tried to give an out just kept on digging.

You guys are accusing Obama's Supreme Court nominee / Biden's Attorney General of failing to uphold the law, even when the evidence of the call is so publicly available and the attempt to subvert democracy so obviously contemptible. You're not actually able to show which law was broken, and you're a little confused about even the most basic facts of the conversation and which votes Trump wanted to find, but somehow you 'just know' that you're right and AG Garland is wrong.

Maybe just try considering the possibility that the law is not as perfect as you've assumed, and Trump found a loophole? Otherwise, show me the law that was broken. I'd be very happy to learn of it, and that seems like a fairly obvious thing to do before accusing the Attorney General of failing to uphold it, I would have thought.

 

[bomberfox]

If you go through all the Biden votes with a fine-tooth comb, checking the signature and "compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago" as Trump was saying, you definitely will find plenty of 'irregularities,' plenty of trivial technicalities by which to disqualify the ballot. Same if you did it to votes for Trump of course, but obviously he was only asking for those disqualifications to be found in Biden votes.


Pretty sure that Raffensperger was not legally obligated to leak the call to the press, so obviously at least some of his actions were based on something more than legal constraint. More to the point, as with judges and most other officials, it could easily be illegal for Raffensperger to carry out his electoral duties in a partisan manner while still being perfectly legal for partisan individuals to present their case/petition for action in their favour.


You guys are accusing Obama's Supreme Court nominee / Biden's Attorney General of failing to uphold the law, even when the evidence of the call is so publicly available and the attempt to subvert democracy so obviously contemptible. You're not actually able to show which law was broken, and you're a little confused about even the most basic facts of the conversation and which votes Trump wanted to find, but somehow you 'just know' that you're right and AG Garland is wrong.

Maybe just try considering the possibility that the law is not as perfect as you've assumed, and Trump found a loophole? Otherwise, show me the law that was broken. I'd be very happy to learn of it, and that seems like a fairly obvious thing to do before accusing the Attorney General of failing to uphold it, I would have thought.

Im not quibbling with you anymore. He is guilty. The system just protects people like Trump as it always has. If the American people do not punish Trump, they will have no recourse to what happens next.

**** i should run for president, i could do anything i want, literally anything i want without seeing a day in jail.

 

[Mithrae]

Im not quibbling with you anymore. He is guilty. The system just protects people like Trump as it always has.

You forgot to tell me that I'm dismissed

 

[bomberfox]

You forgot to tell me that I'm dismissed

You dont know shit about subtext. That i do know.

 

[bomberfox]

So what we have is a head of state that can get away with anything. Perfect lol…. No other democracy would put up with this.

 

[Mithrae]

You dont know shit about subtext. That i do know.

Try prosecuting someone with that argument against a competent defense team. Heck, try going into a courtroom saying "He's guilty, we don't know what law he broke, but he's guilty as hell!" And even that isn't quite a fair description of what you're doing, because it misses the fact that at this point it seems fair to suppose the Attorney General himself doesn't think he broke the law in that call.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I sympathize, it seems surprising and shocking to think that such a contemptible attempt to subvert democracy might not have been strictly illegal; but ultimately what we're talking about is the letter of the law, and it would be naive to think that laws are always as perfect as we'd like.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

He knows those votes are valid. Do you understand subtext at all and why Raffensberger knew he could not legally do that. You are being downright goofy

I think he intends to be goofy.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

I guess when you're supporting a false narrative which had already been thoroughly debunked in this thread, calling names on the big ol' meanie who points it out is one possible response Trump was asking for his/Raffensperger's people to find ~12k disqualifiable votes for Biden. Don't chuck a wobbly just because you're making false claims: Read the transcript again, I provided it for you in post #17, educate yourself, be better. The line that Trump was asking another ~12k votes for himself is obvious bullshit, and look where it's getting you... attacking your own party's appointed Attorney General, based on your own party's lies!

PS, I'm not "independent," Australians are still technically subjects of the Queen

I'm still waiting for you to provide an attorney that agrees with your horseshit. I've asked like 3 times.

You can't, because you're full of shit.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Agreed that is the worst that can happen...the very, very worst. Trump being vindicated by the courts is a nightmare for democracy.

Please....the worst that can happen is that Garland doesn't even try to prosecute Trump and that corrupt fascist **** somehow steals the Presidency again some day.

That is FAR worse than Trump being found not guilty in court. It's better to make an effort and fail to protect democracy than to never even try.

Garland needs to grow a pair.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

the Talididen want to keep whining about the 1/6 riots

There was only one “riot” on January 6th, 2021, and it was a historic attack on the seat of our federal government by crazy ass violent Trumpsters intent on delaying/preventing Congress from doing it’s Constitutional duty, certifying President Biden’s legitimate win of the 2020 presidential election.

to avoid having to deal with the incompetence of senile Joe's administration

 

[Mithrae]

I'm still waiting for you to provide an attorney that agrees with your horseshit. I've asked like 3 times.

You can't, because you're full of shit.

C'mon man, playground insults are beneath you. So is this 'presumption of guilt' nonsense. If you think someone broke the law, you need to say which law they broke and show how, specifically and accurately. None of this "I know he's guilty, prove me wrong." Apparently the Attorney General's opinion isn't good enough for you, but you'll suddenly change your views if I bothered Googling up some random opinion online? Please.

At the very least, have the decency to admit that you were (brazenly and obviously) incorrect in repeatedly claiming that Trump was asking to find votes for himself. If you can't even be honest enough to admit such gaping holes in your reasoning, why would anyone but the most rabid partisans take you seriously?

 

[Athanasius68]

Well, according to several judges, he is not doing law well at all.

Perhaps the judges are doing politics also.
Its certainly not law.

Presently, there are a number of lawyers being investigated for their role in bringing forth Trump's claims of voter fraud to the courts.
Officers of the court can't waste the courts' time with unsupported allegations.
Such restrictions apply to the AG. Perhaps that, and not weakness, explains Garland's actions or lack thereof.

 

[Athanasius68]

Yes..."knowingly and willfully". Which is why an insanity defense is Trump's best way out of this. Garland should be more than willing to prosecute this case. The worst case scenario is Trump is found not guilty.


OK, fine...that's your interpretation of the law.

Just provide a source of an attorney who agrees with you. You still haven't done it.

You're missing the bigger point -- Trump tried to pressure Raffensperger. That is illegal, not to mention totally inappropriate.



No, here is the law you cited:

(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

You're basically saying that there are no laws to prevent someone from trying to change the vote count or from pressuring an election official to change the vote count. That is preposterous.

It was inappropriate for Trump to call Raffensberger.
But not illegal.

Trump believed there was voter fraud. As the statute states, one has to "knowingly and willingly" to deprive residents of a fair and impartial election process.
Moreover, election officials are not laws unto themselves. They are subject, or at least now in Georgia, subject to democratic accountability for their decisions.

 

[HangLow]

I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.

​

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

It was inappropriate for Trump to call Raffensberger.
But not illegal.

Trump believed there was voter fraud. As the statute states, one has to "knowingly and willingly" to deprive residents of a fair and impartial election process.
Moreover, election officials are not laws unto themselves. They are subject, or at least now in Georgia, subject to democratic accountability for their decisions.

I disagree, because Trump knew that he lost.

Regardless, Garland should force Trump to make that same argument in court -- "I thought I won the election because I'm ****ing crazy and I have lost all grasp of reality".

That is a case that any reasonable prosecutor should be willing to pursue.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I think that Merrick Garland has to be the weakest AG that ever sat in that office. I wonder where his spine it situated, somewhere in Alaska by the way he has commanded the DOJ. I think beyond that fact that he is asking for such low sentences for the January 6th riot that even the judges are questioning his people about them, he has done nothing with those who financed or planned the riot on that day. To go with an old saying, he should either shit or get off the pot.

He has the same problem that Mueller had. His ideals are so impractical that they make him completely ineffective.

It's like a cop who is so obsessed with the rights of suspects that he can't arrest anyone. You have to consider practicality.